Post by: roo_ster on March 04, 2008, 06:02:56 PM
I determined that I was dang well going to register a vote against McCain as my candidate from the GOP*. Mother Hucker did not seem to be the best candidate for this, as he has played the role of McCain's butt-buddy since Iowa.
That left the Looney Magnet himself, Ron Paul. So, RP got the oval by his name filled in with ink fitting for my black mood.
Down-ballot, I got to vote for the most conservative candidates in the few contested elections. For instance, Randy Dunning would be an improvement to the NEA-fellating, public-school-pimping, illegal alien coddling monument to the status quo who previously held the post. Since I live across the street from the polling place, I had his campaign post a big ol' sign on my fence over the weekend.
The further down the ballot I went, the better I felt. I did not vote for any unopposed candidates, on GP.
I really do not relish the next few months of campaigning, having to listen to two/three folks I detest. The idea of any of them winning is hateful. Maybe a comet will turn one of their debate venues into an impact crater, throwing the race into chaos and forcing the selection of another set of candidates.
A man can dream.
* I reserve the right to vote for the dirty rat come the general election on the grounds that his opponent is steaming pile of shinola and a future embarrassment to the nation.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on March 04, 2008, 06:10:01 PM
Post by: HankB on March 05, 2008, 03:40:14 AM
jfuser, except for the stuff about Dunning (not my district), I could have written your post.
A country that gave us leaders like Washington, Jefferson and T. Roosevelt, now gives us . . . this.
Sad . . .
Post by: MrRezister on March 05, 2008, 06:41:13 AM
Post by: El Tejon on March 05, 2008, 09:58:53 AM
Post by: roo_ster on March 05, 2008, 10:45:01 AM
Are you typing from your mom's basement now?
Was that to me or MrRezister? I'll have you know my mom has no basement. She does, however, have a dank closet.
Yeah we get it. Nobody wants mccain in office, but we'll gladly vote for him over hillbama because they are REALLY REALLY evil. Do you want the knife in your chest or back? Thank you for voting.
I'll take the knife in the chest, thank you. (I think that means McCain is less bad than Hillbama.) But, it seems some folks are operating in the "evil Spock with a goatee" universe and not the one I do.
Also, some folks seem unconversant with the concept of "damage control."
Post by: El Tejon on March 05, 2008, 10:56:40 AM
Post by: Bigjake on March 05, 2008, 11:12:21 AM
How can you vote for Ron Paul and not live in your mom's basement?
Yeah! We have standards to uphold here! Don't live in Mom's basement = Not eligible to vote Paulistinian*
Kinda sorta like being literate excludes you from voting dem
*unless you're a costume fanboy, which then negates the whole mom's basement requirement.
Don't blame me, I voted Obamaramadingdong.
Post by: MrRezister on March 05, 2008, 12:38:16 PM
Post by: Scout26 on March 05, 2008, 01:19:39 PM
Chee-to satined fingers are non-waiverable.
Post by: thebaldguy on March 05, 2008, 01:41:57 PM
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on March 05, 2008, 02:15:04 PM
More Ron Paul bashing. I'm getting used to it now.
Don't worry, he lost the race last night, so you won't be hearing much more about him in the future.
Post by: WeedWhacker on March 05, 2008, 02:33:35 PM
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on March 05, 2008, 02:46:02 PM
Delegates to the national conventions don't decide who they're going to vote for based on their own personal opinions. They vote according to the results of their state's election. That means they'll vote for McCain, plain and simple.
I don't like McCain any more than you do, but that's the reality of the situation. Make peace with it and move on.
Post by: WeedWhacker on March 05, 2008, 02:57:54 PM
Delegates to the national conventions don't decide who they're going to vote for based on their own personal opinions. They vote for whomever their state elected. That means McCain, plain and simple.
Absolutely false; you're part of the problem, making ASSumptions which turn out to be wrong, or at best, mostly wrong.
First and foremost, not all states are "winner-take-all", or even have bound delegates at all. Some of those initial delegates are pledged in good conscience to the person who won the primary election... I looked into that matter myself after Ron Paul came in second in Nevada - there was no way I was going to be a delegate in support of Romney, and if I was told I would have to support Romney, I was going to tell them where they could shove my delegate spot.
Turns out not to be the case. Many delegates can support whomever they choose, and it *appears* that decision can be made (and changed) at any time, hence the importance of the actual delegates rather than the pointless polls.
With McCain, for example, several people I've talked to regarding his allegedly belonging to the anti-abortion camp have completely changed their minds when presented with his actual record over the years. I have high hopes that when other delegates realize they got fed a line, they will in good conscience be forced to put their support behind a candidate who better represents those who they are a delegate for.
Post by: The Rabbi on March 05, 2008, 05:46:49 PM
Ya. Right. That's gonna happen.
Post by: WeedWhacker on March 05, 2008, 07:41:47 PM
Question one: "what form of government does the United States of America currently use"?
Post by: MicroBalrog on March 05, 2008, 10:49:20 PM
I genuinely think that Ron Paul is the best candidate that ran in these primaries, and, to paraphrase Ehud Barak, had I been an American of the appropriate age, I would have voted for him.
But he has lost.
It's beyond immature to claim a possibility of a direct political win (i.e. actually becoming a nominee) is viable in these primaries for Ron Paul at this point at space and time.
That said, it is possible that the libertarian/small-government/paleocon movement can salvage a strategic benefit of some form out of this.
The likelihood however... ahem.
Post by: The Rabbi on March 06, 2008, 01:55:08 AM
Pop quiz, Rabbi!
Question one: "what form of government does the United States of America currently use"?
Republic.Question one: "what form of government does the United States of America currently use"?
Question two: what is the air velocity of a sparrow?
Post by: roo_ster on March 06, 2008, 03:14:34 AM
Post by: WeedWhacker on March 06, 2008, 10:43:36 AM
Pop quiz, Rabbi!
Question one: "what form of government does the United States of America currently use"?
Republic.Question one: "what form of government does the United States of America currently use"?
Close, but with you missed a key distinction: a republic differs from a constitutional republic (or "representative republic", as I prefer to call it) in that while in a republic, the common folk have "some (undefined) impact on government", a representative republic is based around common folks electing representatives who then participate in government in place of direct participation by said people.
If you still stand by your "will of the people" comment, I suggest you do a bit of reading of the writings made by the people who set this country up in the first place.
-edit
The degree of apathy, even among those who bothered to show up for the hour or two on the caucus Saturday, was shocking. The vast majority were not interested in anything other than filling in a dot on a pointless ballot poll (since the poll had no impact whatsoever on delegate elections, which were done a few minutes later) and hurrying through the few formalities so we all could feel free to leave (and 20% of the folks did leave immediately after the straw poll).
If people, through voting, expressed interest in candidates speaking of low taxes, fixing the economy, respecting the Second Amendment (and the rest of the Constitution), and so forth, and as time passes, 80%+ of the candidates throw in the towel, it would then be the duty of the elected representative to use old and new information together to support the best candidate for the desired ideals.
Post by: The Rabbi on March 06, 2008, 11:09:42 AM
Pop quiz, Rabbi!
Question one: "what form of government does the United States of America currently use"?
Republic.Question one: "what form of government does the United States of America currently use"?
Close, but with you missed a key distinction: a republic differs from a constitutional republic (or "representative republic", as I prefer to call it) in that while in a republic, the common folk have "some (undefined) impact on government", a representative republic is based around common folks electing representatives who then participate in government in place of direct participation by said people.
If you still stand by your "will of the people" comment, I suggest you do a bit of reading of the writings made by the people who set this country up in the first place.
I'd suggest you review the constitutional rules for the nominating process.
Then I have a few other suggestions for you.
Ron Paul is not going to be the GOP candidate. Period. If McCain died of a stroke tomorrow, Paul wouldn't get the nomination.
Post by: WeedWhacker on March 06, 2008, 11:53:45 AM
Pop quiz, Rabbi!
Question one: "what form of government does the United States of America currently use"?
Republic.Question one: "what form of government does the United States of America currently use"?
Close, but with you missed a key distinction: a republic differs from a constitutional republic (or "representative republic", as I prefer to call it) in that while in a republic, the common folk have "some (undefined) impact on government", a representative republic is based around common folks electing representatives who then participate in government in place of direct participation by said people.
If you still stand by your "will of the people" comment, I suggest you do a bit of reading of the writings made by the people who set this country up in the first place.
I'd suggest you review the constitutional rules for the nominating process.
Then I have a few other suggestions for you.
I might review the constitutional rules for the nominating process, if they applied to political parties' nomination procedures, which they don't, and in regards to the parties' own rules, I'm currently as sure as I can be without being a lawyer that the best tack for someone sick of the crap presented by those in high places as "choices" to take.
Post by: The Rabbi on March 06, 2008, 11:57:35 AM
So yammering on about "republic" vs "constitutional republic" is pretty darn meaningless here. The parties decide how they want to run things. And the party is not going to decide to make Ron Paul their standard bearer as he has proven himself a loser.
Post by: seeker_two on March 06, 2008, 12:04:58 PM
Ron Paul is not going to be the GOP candidate. Period. If McCain died of a stroke tomorrow, Paul wouldn't get the nomination.
What about food poisoning?.......Viagra overdose?.......Reading APS and laughing & coughing at the same time?.......
Post by: WeedWhacker on March 06, 2008, 12:45:31 PM
Exactly.
So yammering on about "republic" vs "constitutional republic" is pretty darn meaningless here. The parties decide how they want to run things. And the party is not going to decide to make Ron Paul their standard bearer as he has proven himself a loser.
So yammering on about "republic" vs "constitutional republic" is pretty darn meaningless here. The parties decide how they want to run things. And the party is not going to decide to make Ron Paul their standard bearer as he has proven himself a loser.
You seem to be intentionally missing the point I have repeatedly made: the GOP delegates are the ones who nominate the GOP candidate, and the delegates will decide who that candidate is in September.
Those GOP delegates are normal Joe Sixpacks, like myself, who have been elected through the primary/caucus process.
The only reason I persist in attempting to shove these points clearly into the open is because there are other Joe Sixpacks out there who have been elected as delegates and who, since no one tells the delegates anything useful, if they still have any interest in anyone other than McCain, might need a little poke with enough information to whet their interest enough for them to verify it for themselves and continue participating in the process.
Post by: Balog on March 06, 2008, 01:12:19 PM
What many RP supporters don't seem to realize is that endless frantic raving in support of an obviously lost cause just hurts their little Ross Perot looking Messiah. People don't think "Hey that could work!" They think what we do; that anyone so clearly disconnected from reality impugns their candidate by their very support.
Post by: The Rabbi on March 06, 2008, 02:11:19 PM
Exactly.
So yammering on about "republic" vs "constitutional republic" is pretty darn meaningless here. The parties decide how they want to run things. And the party is not going to decide to make Ron Paul their standard bearer as he has proven himself a loser.
So yammering on about "republic" vs "constitutional republic" is pretty darn meaningless here. The parties decide how they want to run things. And the party is not going to decide to make Ron Paul their standard bearer as he has proven himself a loser.
You seem to be intentionally missing the point I have repeatedly made: the GOP delegates are the ones who nominate the GOP candidate, and the delegates will decide who that candidate is in September.
Those GOP delegates are normal Joe Sixpacks, like myself, who have been elected through the primary/caucus process.
The only reason I persist in attempting to shove these points clearly into the open is because there are other Joe Sixpacks out there who have been elected as delegates and who, since no one tells the delegates anything useful, if they still have any interest in anyone other than McCain, might need a little poke with enough information to whet their interest enough for them to verify it for themselves and continue participating in the process.
Right.
And the idea that the GOP delegates are going to vote against the candidate who won the most votes cast by GOP voters is as ludicrous as..as..as....Ron Paul's positions. And it dont get worse than that.
Post by: WeedWhacker on March 06, 2008, 02:35:27 PM
We all agree it's not technically impossible.
You seem to have skipped reading the posts I have been responding directly to by Mike Irwin, Rabbi, and a few others who have adamantly stated that anyone other than McCain getting the GOP nomination is flat out impossible, which is completely false. "Improbable" does NOT equal "impossible".
Quote from: The Rabbi
And the idea that the GOP delegates are going to vote against the candidate who won the most votes cast by GOP voters is as ludicrous as..as..as....Ron Paul's positions. And it dont get worse than that.
Firstly, you demonstrate continuing ignorance of the point I have been making as clear as I possibly can, and so I can only assume you are doing the online equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and yelling "la la la, I can't hear you!!" Repeat after me: in some/many/most states, elected delegates make up their own minds about whom to support for the GOP nomination.
Then I repeat a c-r-y-s-t-a-l clear example: Nevada gave ~51% of the straw poll vote to Romney (who has endorsed McCain). Delegates are in no way - legal, party rules, morally, or otherwise - required to abide by the results of the official straw poll, because it was a straw poll and had no bearing whatsoever on the election of delegates; I know, because I was sitting right in the middle of both. If I has been told otherwise, I would have responsed by saying, "get bent, I quit", as I cannot bring myself to show support for McCain even in the slightest way.
In short, Rabbi, you are wrong. That fact does not change the matter that anyone other than McCain winning the GOP nomination is improbable, but repeat after me: "Improbable" does NOT equal "impossible".
Post by: Paddy on March 06, 2008, 02:45:03 PM
Quote
elected delegates make up their own minds about whom to support for the GOP nomination.
OK, then list the times they've countermanded the will of the people (who voted in the primaries) and nominated someone else.
Go ahead.
Post by: The Rabbi on March 06, 2008, 03:38:25 PM
We all agree it's not technically impossible.
You seem to have skipped reading the posts I have been responding directly to by Mike Irwin, Rabbi, and a few others who have adamantly stated that anyone other than McCain getting the GOP nomination is flat out impossible, which is completely false. "Improbable" does NOT equal "impossible".
Quote from: The Rabbi
And the idea that the GOP delegates are going to vote against the candidate who won the most votes cast by GOP voters is as ludicrous as..as..as....Ron Paul's positions. And it dont get worse than that.
Firstly, you demonstrate continuing ignorance of the point I have been making as clear as I possibly can, and so I can only assume you are doing the online equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and yelling "la la la, I can't hear you!!" Repeat after me: in some/many/most states, elected delegates make up their own minds about whom to support for the GOP nomination.
Then I repeat a c-r-y-s-t-a-l clear example: Nevada gave ~51% of the straw poll vote to Romney (who has endorsed McCain). Delegates are in no way - legal, party rules, morally, or otherwise - required to abide by the results of the official straw poll, because it was a straw poll and had no bearing whatsoever on the election of delegates; I know, because I was sitting right in the middle of both. If I has been told otherwise, I would have responsed by saying, "get bent, I quit", as I cannot bring myself to show support for McCain even in the slightest way.
In short, Rabbi, you are wrong. That fact does not change the matter that anyone other than McCain winning the GOP nomination is improbable, but repeat after me: "Improbable" does NOT equal "impossible".
No, impossible is impossible.
It is impossible that Ron Paul will get the nomination. Maybe not physically impossible but politically impossible.
And if anyone has his fingers in his ears (or other places) it is you spreading this ass-hattery around. Ron Paul never had a chance from day one. Look back on all the old threads dealing with this ad nauseam. His supporters never recognized the reality. And judging from your posts they still dont.
Post by: johnster999 on March 06, 2008, 08:39:38 PM
Post by: Paddy on March 06, 2008, 08:42:56 PM
I say let the Paul people keep clinging to fantasy if it makes them happy.
And you hang on to that McCain fantasy. It will help repel the inevitable.
Post by: johnster999 on March 06, 2008, 08:52:34 PM
And you hang on to that McCain fantasy. It will help repel the inevitable.
Nah, no McCain in my fantasies. I think he has a good shot at finding his way into the presidency, though.
Post by: K Frame on March 07, 2008, 08:46:47 AM
Uh, you may want to go back and actually read what I said when I closed that thread, Mr. Whacker.
It is NOT as you have categorized it.
What I said is that McCain has sewn up the nomination -- that's a factual statement as of this time based on pledged delegates.
I have NOT, in any way, shape, or form, "adamantly stated" that it is impossible for someone else to gain the nomination.
Of course it's possible.
McCain could die. He could be become incapacitated. He could be linked to something so heinous that his pledged delegates flee him. Any number of things could happen.
What I DID say, however, is that Ron Paul is history when it comes to presidential aspirations.
Even were McCain to be removed suddenly and the nomination have to go to the Republican convention, it's utter and complete fantasy to think that Ron Paul has even the remotest chance of gaining the party's nomination.
It's more likely that a space alien named GLARR'D!FUX will probe Mr. Paul, find him tasty, and serve him up as sushi before he gains the Republican nomination.
Post by: The Rabbi on March 07, 2008, 09:04:47 AM
It's more likely that a space alien named GLARR'D!FUX will probe Mr. Paul, find him tasty, and serve him up as sushi before he gains the Republican nomination.
We can only hope.
Post by: keeleon on March 07, 2008, 11:55:00 AM
Post by: WeedWhacker on March 07, 2008, 12:51:56 PM
Ok, this still bugs the crap out of me and I would love a real answer. Why do we have a system based on voting for people to vote for the people that we vote for? It seems to me that the easiest way to do it would be to just add up the popular vote and use that number to decide. And for that matter, why do we waste time with the primaries? Why don't we just say, "OK, here's the people that want to be president, pick one"? I am so sick of our government being stupid and wasting our tax dollars and then complaining that we don't have enough money when THEY waste it on the stupidest things. The way the system is set up currently, really does mean that none of our votes count (except maybe Whacker's apparently).
First of all, that question should probably be in a new thread. Secondly, the junk the APS curmudgeons and myself have been going back and forth over involve political parties and their own rules.
Brief answers to your questions could include the following: the original Founders were well aware that pure democracies utterly fail when people discover they can vote themselves money from the public dole, and so explicitly set up a representative republic to avoid a direct democracy; political parties were frowned on from the beginning, even though the use of them commenced almost immediately; the individual states have their own ways of running party elections, so you'll have to take up the specifics you disagree with with those specific states.
Post by: keeleon on March 07, 2008, 01:01:36 PM
Quote
the junk the APS curmudgeons and myself have been going back and forth over involve political parties and their own rules.
Well that is a completely different gripe I have as well. The political parties are technically not part of the government, correct? Which is why they get to make there own rules as far as how they elect people. Why is it that my tax dollars go to pay for them to "decide" who they want to nominate? Do they pay for the complete electoral process involved in the primaries? What if my "private company" wanted to do a "poll" of how many people liked bacon, am I able to just put it on a ballot? Why have the "Republicans" and "Democrats" been allowed to achieve such a "spiritual" level in the eyes of the nation that there is no other option? It just bothers me that it is so black and white and there is no way to change it.
Post by: K Frame on March 07, 2008, 07:48:06 PM
Beg your pardon?
Political parties, and their activities, are funded by their members and supporters.
Post by: keeleon on March 07, 2008, 08:05:49 PM
Post by: K Frame on March 07, 2008, 09:06:37 PM
It's a function of government, therefore is paid for by government.
Selection of candidates, and the entire candidate selection process, is NOT a Constitutional process, and is therefore paid fro by the parties.
Post by: keeleon on March 08, 2008, 05:16:41 AM
Quote
Selection of candidates, and the entire candidate selection process, is NOT a Constitutional process, and is therefore paid fro by the parties.
Oh, so the parties actually pay for the primary process themselves? I never knew that, and that fors make me feel a little better about it. I always just assumed that because my check came fro ma gov account when I worked the polls, it was the gov paying for it.
Post by: K Frame on March 08, 2008, 06:48:24 AM
The election process itself is paid for by the state/local governments where it comes to printing ballots, conducting the elections, etc. It's part of the voting process.
The parties/candidates pay for campaigning.
There's a really interesting thing gearing up in Florida and Michigan right now. Because the state party moved the dates of the primaries against the DNC's wishes, the DNC told the state party that their delegates would not count in the process to select a candidate.
But, no one expected thing to be as close as they are, so now they're looking at possible "do over" elections in those two states.
But, the question is, especially in Florida where there's a Republican governor, who is going to pay for a second election? The Gov. isn't all that crazy about spending the money to go through it twice when it was the state Democratic party's fault as to why the delegates didn't count in the first place.
Post by: MrRezister on March 08, 2008, 08:51:40 AM
Post by: Bigjake on March 08, 2008, 08:54:23 AM
Post by: K Frame on March 08, 2008, 10:56:09 AM
I heard Jeb talking about that and he said that if the DNC was determined to have another primary vote, the party would need to foot the bill. It seems redundant when they already know the results of the last vote, I wonder how far they expect the new vote to differ from the old one, and how much of a horrible fight would it be if Obama won the redux? Interesting times indeed.
Jeb ain't gov. in Florida no mo...
The thinking is that at the time of the last vote Hillary was still considered to be the front runner but things have changed dramatically. Then there's the fact that neither candidate really spent any time in Florida because at the time of the vote the delegates had already been disqualified.
Post by: Scout26 on March 10, 2008, 01:17:15 PM